At least 120 computer generated nonsense papers have been reviewed and published in publications of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and Springer, as well as conference proceedings. The fakes have just been discovered by a French researcher and are being withdrawn.

Cyril Labbé found a way to spot artificially-generated science papers, and published it his website and lo, the fakes turned up en masse. In the past, pretend papers have turned up in open access journals–this time the fake papers appeared in subscription based journals. But the man who caught the fakes says he cannot be sure he’s caught them all, because he couldn’t check all the papers behind paywalls.

The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.

Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers.

One paper was called “TIC: a methodology for the construction of e-commerce”. In the abstract it claimed they “concentrate our efforts on disproving that spreadsheets can be made knowledge-based, empathic, and compact”.

The system IS the problem. Peer review is not rigorous, the incentives are all wrong, but it is given huge social and financial importance far beyond what it is capable of.

Labbé says that the latest discovery is merely one symptom of a “spamming war started at the heart of science” in which researchers feel pressured to rush out papers to publish as much as possible.

These fakes were generated by software and so blatant that they were spotted by software too (did anybody read them?):

Labbé developed a way to automatically detect manuscripts composed by a piece of software called SCIgen, which randomly combines strings of words to produce fake computer-science papers. SCIgen was invented in 2005 by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge to prove that conferences would accept meaningless papers — and, as they put it, “to maximize amusement” (see ‘Computer conference welcomes gobbledegook paper’). A related program generates random physics manuscript titles on the satirical website arXiv vs. snarXiv.

Labbé has been in this game on both sides. He used SCIgen to create 102 fake papers which were published four years ago. He invented a fake author and got the imaginary scientist’s rank up to the the 21st most highly cited scientist. So much for the Google Scholar ranking…

Is it a hoax, or are real researchers using SCIgen (a program that writes “papers”) as a way of quickly polishing a half done paper, or writing an invented paper? “Most of the papers were submitted to conferences based in China and were published with Chinese affiliations.” We know in China there is great pressure, and many rewards given for scientists to publish.

Science is not process that can be bureaucratized, commodified, bottled and boxed. The success of an idea cannot be measured by a publishing index.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 9.3/10 (103 votes cast)

Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn -- so much for "peer review", 9.3 out of 10 based on 103 ratings

Peer review has become argument from authority, nothing more. It may have had a purpose when scientific journals were printed and so getting it right was important, but that paradigm has shifted. These journals are online now. Comments and corrections can be done at any time in real time.

Do the science, get it out there and let all those that are interested critique the work on its merits.

Oooh now there’s a nice argument from authority all dressed up in a bow tie and socks.

So I guess Truthseeker shall not comment on murder, child pornography, union corruption, people smuggling, prostitution, life after death or many, many subjects until he has personally engaged himself in such activities.

Ooops, so sorry, I’ve peer reviewed your comment without the necessary qualifications. How dare I comment on the writings of someone so learned.

Any time the alarmists do not like something based on observations, one of the first arguments they make is “has it been peer reviewed” as if they need someone else’s opinion on something before they can have their own. The Climategate emails showed that the CRU alarmists wanted to “redefine what peer review is” to stop contrary arguments from being published. Whatever peer review once was, it is not that any longer. Of course, the more political the field of study the more pressure that peer review comes under.

In theory peer review should stop journals publishing crap, but given the sheer number of journals and the amount of content they need to produce that is not true anymore. Just look at the model based crap that is getting published at the drop of a hat for anything related to climate.

I do not need anyone else’s opinion to see what is happening. There is plenty of observational evidence to support my conclusions.

Truthseeker, Sorry if my last contributioin sounded a little huffy, but I have seen so many comments on peer review which show that writers do not understand how the process works and what its purpose is.

There is often an implied or overt criticism of the diligence and integrity of manuscript authors, reviewers and journal editorial staff which I personally resent on behalf of myself, friends and colleaugues who are involved in this process, and with the exception of paid editorial staff, do it for free.

Fair enough, but the process is being hijacked by those with a political agenda. It is those activists masquerading as scientists that are doing the work of yourself and others who may be trying to do the right thing, so much harm. Those of us on the outside maybe be spectators, but we can see the game being played and are shouting our opinions from the cheap seats.

It’s surreal enough that I could believe this whole CAGW abomination (and the government insanity that it invoked), was a computer generated prank that got out. . There are a thousand novels one could write on this theme.

It is worse that the poor quality of the research. Part of the UNESCO media education juggernaut going on globally with sponsorship by UNESCO is to teach students to defer to the judgment of “experts.” Defined of course by degree and title. To treat certain sources as suspect and others as trustworthy, depending on how compliant media outlet is in complying with UN’s agenda.

Because this MIL-Media and Information Literacy focus deemphasizes actual knowledge and facts, there’s nothing to trigger a recognition of just how bogus most of what is to be pushed on the children actually is. After all UNESCO prides itself as being the Education Task Manager under Agenda 21. Erroneous facts or the competing vision created by physical reality just cannot be allowed to get in the way.

“Peer reviewed” is one of those phrases that will be taught explicitly to students so they will see anything produced as reliable without further review. Ready to be acted on.

What I find deeply torubling is the mindset of blind trust in “authority” figures who can never be wrong ( in these peoples minds ). Look at the RCC and Galilleo.

Sceptics have one defining feature essential to survival – an ability to critically question any information, in the face of an onlslaught by the “groupthink drones”.

The great unwashed also have been trained not to think – just obey.
This is modern Fuedalism in action.

To imply that a “trusted” authroity that “97% of scientists” believ could be wrong…well….you might have well insulted their parentage.
Such is the Stockholm Syndrome so deeply ingrained in people now.
The mass media and internet and reality tv has taken minds untrained in critical thought and made them completely subservient to the “group”.

This is why you get a vicious backlash from the bulk of the population – by questioning a “truth” , you are undermining their identity and security.

But this is also a problem of the modern post modernism BS – every truth is truth therefore no reference points of absolute truth can therefore exist, and anyone who does question is a “bigot” and a “hater”.

This, I think sums it all up. They are captured by debt and consumerism to need their jobs and to produce what their teachers, bosses and colleagues demand.

But don’t blame post modernism. I’m a post modernist and a scientist. Post modernist thought has huge benefits. I would hate to lose the word and have to find another meme because it became a synonym for anti-science. Post modernism as I understand it doesn’t mean every truth is truth, at least not as I understand it. Nor as I learned to explore it in the 1990s, but perhaps the concept has collapsed inwards on itself since then.

“Modern”* means “now-time”, so “post-modern” means “after now”. After now is the future. Thus, talk of us living in a “post-modern” age is either nonsense or an abuse of the English language, or both. Since post-modernism was cooked up in France, it is no surprise to see it is both. (Not as much fun as Futurism, either.)

“Post modernism as I understand it doesn’t mean every truth is truth,”
If you mean “not everything claimed to be true is true”, then that is not the Pomo claim. PoMos claim that there are no objective truths. This seems self-defeating to me. Is the PoMo claim true?

The PoMo begins with the idea that there is a way of thinking called “modernism” (and the abuse of English starts…) and then criticizes that way of thinking.

If it’s theirs, then it’s theirs. What’s mine is mine, until I marry – then it belongs to the ex and her lawyers. Give to Gaia what is Gaia’s. Give the UN what you reckon they deserve.
What’s white got to do with anything anyway?

‘so much for “peer review”‘,well it’s the best system there is. What other method could be used?

What does peer reviewed mean?

‘First let me clear up any misunderstanding how these papers get published and especially the process of peer review. It’s a system that has been around for over 200 years. And its purpose is to keep bad research out of the scientific literature. Referees look through submitted papers for obvious mistakes and flaws in methodology and advise the editor of the journal accordingly. Papers are excluded if the mistakes and flaws are very obvious, papers should not be excluded simply if the referee or an editor disagree with its contents or conclusions.’

["Peer review exists, solely to protect the reputation of the Publication". You could have said that, and made your point, without including a video link, that I might verify, when I have time to watch it. In the meantime, you remain in moderation -Fly]

“Peer review exists, solely to protect the reputation of the Publication”, no that’s no true and you know it! It exists to protect, as far as possible, the validity of science! And as a challenge for those that want to take a perverse/unqualified point of view, for their own agendas!

Well maybe bd4 you should read this very relevant commentary on Peer Review [ below] by Michael Nielsen.

To give a bit of background to Nielsen;
[quote]
My interest in open science grew out of my work as a scientist. In the 1990s and 2000s I helped pioneer the field of quantum computation. Together with Ike Chuang of MIT, I wrote the standard text on quantum computing. This is one of the ten most highly cited physics books of all time (Source: Google Scholar, [end]

Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science

[quoted]

What about the suppression of innovation? Every scientist knows of major discoveries that ran into trouble with peer review. David Horrobin has a remarkable paper (ref) where he documents some of the discoveries almost suppressed by peer review; as he points out, he can’t list the discoveries that were in fact suppressed by peer review, because we don’t know what those were. His list makes horrifying reading. Here’s just a few instances that I find striking, drawn in part from his list. Note that I’m restricting myself to suppression of papers by peer review; I believe peer review of grants and job applications probably has a much greater effect in suppressing innovation.

George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.

Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.

Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.

To sum up: there is very little reliable evidence about the effect of peer review available from systematic studies; peer review is at best an imperfect filter for validity and quality; and peer review sometimes has a chilling effect, suppressing important scientific discoveries.
[end of quote]

Perhaps I could suggest that Jo’s denizens could wander over sometime to the Retraction Watch blog.
Certainly there are I think about 50,000 science papers published each year across all languages although English is the international language of science as well as of global trade and commerce.

I regularly visit Retraction Watch to see what really amounts to the tip of the iceberg as far as fraudulent science is concerned but it is still an interesting look inside of sciences smelliest entrails to see that far from being the holy without sin pursuit of purity which scientists like to promote as a way of elevating their own standings as scientists, that science across all of it’s disciplines is just as low down and dirty as any other trade or profession.

You will find the Retraction Watch article on the withdrawal of those 120 papers there and the comment that those 120 papers were only found in the lesser well known publications and the most prominent science publications weren’t even looked at.

There is a great deal about science today and the apparently increasing incidence of corruption of data, analysis and publication that should be arousing a very big public stink indeed particularly as most science today is being funded by the hard earned of the very residents who are expected to kowtow and tug the forelock every time some certain so called scientists walks past.
Conversely there are a lot of quite humble very skillful scientists who are just getting on with their research and hoping like hell that the odour of corrupted science won’t come through their door and bite them as well. I know some of those guys and gals and cannot praise them enough.

One very diffident little guy that nobody would give a thought to and just pass by just happens to be regarded as arguably and possibly the best grain crop geneticist in the world .
He’s the type of scientists whose science will almost guarantee that the world’s peoples will still be adequately fed as the global population soars up to around the 9 billion mark before fully stabilising and then starting on the long slow decline of our human numbers by about 2050 or 2060. This guy alone is worth some hundreds or even thousands of climate scientists to the future of humanity and our freedom from hunger in a world of increasing population and a probability of declining global temperatures with all that entails for the future of global food production.
And he’s the guy that the plant breeders turn to and ask what is the likely outcome or what varieties should be crossed and bred to get the next lift in yields or disease resistance in the various food crops such as wheat, barley rice and etc.
And he is in demand in crop research establishments across all of Australia and Asia as well as other nations that rely on the similar type of crops to those we grow here.

But will he ever get any public recognition of any type except from those who know him in the grains research science industry ?

No way and yet some stand up and ignorant comic who calls themselves climate scientists gets all sorts of publicity from the media and funding plus, plus for even more abjectly disgusting so called climate science that does nothing for anybody except to deliberately create even more fear as a way to get even more funding.

“…Retraction Watch readers may recall that it was Applied Mathematics Letters — a non-open-access journal published by Elsevier — that published a string of bizarre papers, including one that was retracted because it made “no sense mathematically” and another whose corresponding author’s email address was “ohm@budweiser.com.”

With about 500 retractions per year in 2012 and 2013, these 120-plus — if they show up as retractions in databases — could make 2014 another record-breaking year.

Were you not allowed to do three or four years of Maths at the tertiary education facility you attended?

Where you not allowed to do science subjects as part of a BA degree at that facility?

It seems that British Universities are much more liberal than those in Australia. In Britain, whether you get a BSc or a BA depends on what you nominate as your Major subject. But there again, in Monckton’s day universities were not into brainwashing, as they are today.

Oh I don’t know, maybe a system where methodology, results of experimentation, breakdown of assumptions, breakdown of uncertainties, complete unmodified data sets and such trivialities are freely available for validation and falsification by other scientific bodies.

Science works by falsification,
First a researcher comes up with a theory, then they try to prove it wrong.
If they fail to prove it wrong they write a paper about it, then send it to a journal for three other people to try and prove it wrong.
If they fail to prove it wrong they publish it in their journal and send it out to their readers who then try to prove it wrong.
If they fail to prove it wrong then it becomes an accepted fact until some really smart bugger comes along in the future and proves it wrong. (like say the high school student who discovered that the black currents in ribena did not in fact contain more Vitamin C than Orange Juice)

The moral of the story is that publication in a scientific journal proves nothing, since proof is a mathematical construct!

They have not always done so. I am with Fly, on this one. “Peer review is there to protect the reputation of the Journal”.

You submit a paper to a Journal, and the Editor says, “Hmm, I am not sure I understand what this is all about, so I will ask A, B, and C, for their opinion”. A, B, and C, come back with comments and suggested changes, and the paper either gets published or not, as the case may be. But there is nothing in the scientific process that forces the editor to get a peer review. If he or she doesn’t, and the Journal has to retract the paper (which still sometimes happens, in spite of peer review), then the Editor may loose his or her job, but that still has no bearing on science.

Correct. Peer review became necessary when science ceased to be an activity carried out by a small group of people who presented their findings to each other at meetings, wrote to each other and published their findings in books. The consensus they formed as to the validity of these studies contituted a method of peer review.

2. Peer review is reliable.

Agree with BA4. How do you define reliable?

3. Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science.

No. It is a quality control method whereby a scientific manuscript submitted to a journal is assessed as to whether or not it is rigorous and important enough to merit publication in that journal.

As for those papers allegedly “suppressed” by peer review. Reasons for the rejection by the journals are not given. But one example does illustrate a point:

Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

In this case the paper failed to be accepted at first was accepted later. This is very common. The reviewers often suggest more work needs to be done. The researcher goes away and does it, improving the paper and it is published. That is one example of the benefits of peer review.

Also, it is very common for a paper to be found not suitable by a particular journal (for a variety of reasons)and subsequently be accepted by another.

Also note that all the “suppressed” science was published. And there is no list of all those groundbreaking papers which where published without a hitch.

To say “Ah well we don’t know what important papers were suppressed because they never saw the light of day is a totally unscientific non-testable non-falsifiable hypothesis.

The Xenophon quote “No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happened to say it by chance, they would not know they had done so.” is common to most collections of memorable quotes in science. Is this perverse or an unqualified view? What are your qualifications to insist otherwise?

The publication has name that needs to be protected, as do the authors. Science is a method. Your point is like insisting that the validity of writing needs to be protected from romance novels.

Publishers are simply companies specialising in publishing within a scientific discipline. Their primary role is to find enough articles within the remit of their magazine which is of interest to their readers and correct according to the author’s peers.

The science is not really within their grasp. And certainly not “…to protect, as far as possible, the validity of science”.

They are first and foremost a company. The product of the company is a magazine. They don’t even write the material that goes into the magazine. They are not in control of the “science”.

Greg. The editorial advisory panel and the editor in chief of each journal are emminent scientists in the field. The editor-in-chief may no longer be engaged in full time research. They are certainly interested in the validity of the science.

They do not have to find enough articles to publish. The most prestigious in particular receive far, far more manuscripts than they can publish.

True, the publishers are driven by profit motive. And they make profits because people are willing to subscribe to a journal. And subscribers do so because they trust the journal. No publisher of a respected journal is going to trash the brand by publishing shoddy science.

So they get experts in the field to look over each manuscript to see if it merits publication.

Very little of the academic literature on this subject is as obsessed with “predictions” as you apparently are, and yet the projections based on observed data have been found to be either spot on or too conservative.
Sea level for example is rising faster than predicted, as is ice loss.

The predictions that were inarguably wrong were the ones you touted here:
Easterbrook: completely wrong.
McLean: utterly wrong.
Akasofu: wrong.

[JenJ you need to lift your game and support your claims with references. You seem totally unaware of the extremely poor record of climate science predictions and moving goal posts in what we were told was settled science. You only need to look at the plethora of 'explanations' for the temperature pause to see not only didn't the science predict the pause, they can't explain it! - Mod]

And then compare it with some of the crud published by Jo’s favourite cranks: Lindzen got it completely wrong. He got it wrong for two reasons:
1/ He was adamant that sensitivity is very low
2/ He refused to base his estimation of sensitivity on empirical data, instead making it a an object of faith that sensitivity is about 0.5.

Name any papers that “rely on catastrophic predictions”, whatever that means.

[Jen you are not being genuine if you seriously expect readers to believe you are unaware of published papers which make catastrophic predictions. Ocean acidity will destroy the Great Barrier Reef, the Antarctic Ice Sheet will slip off and cause catastrophic rise in sea levels, glaciers and Arctic ice will disappear, the Polar bears will starve, tens of millions of climate refugees, Pacific islands will be swamped, bush fires more prevalent, extreme weather events more prevalent. Where have you been for the last 20 years? - Mod]

The author of the critique has indeed kicked an own goal. He really should have read the paper more thoroughly.

Fig 1 does indeed show Hansen’s calculations for the CO2 contribution only to temperature anomoly for various model scenarios.

But Nowhere does Hansen claim that is the whole story.

He specifically states that the CO2 temperature signal will not rise out of the natural signal until the 1980′s.

So yes, the natural forcings dominate up to the 1940′s

The author’s overlay of temperature data on to figure 1 is essentially the same as that of fig 5 in the paper, (although of course Hansen’s temperature data only go up to 1980) which also shows how two natural forcings and CO2 combined account for the temperature record.

You should read the 570 pages. They might change your views forever. This is one of the first formal places where the whole GHG hypothesis as elucidated by modelling is admitted to be under serious doubt.

Here: I found some junk-science that was unable to make it past the peer-review process:http://climaterealists.com/?id=7349
John McLean used his limited grasp of mathematics to predict 2012 would be the “coldest year since 1956″.
Loser!

Just imagine if the *real* scientists were ever caught out getting it as wrong as McLean???

The thing is Vince, even if the science behind these predictions is corect it in no way invalidates AGW.

This one says a cold spell is expected due to ENSO. Elsewhere there is a link to Don Easterbrook who says that we are in for a 25 to 30 year cooling cycle due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

6.3.1.1.2
The Griss
February 27, 2014 at 12:31 pm

So how does this (if correct) invalidate AGW? It doesn’t. What happens when these natural forcings (ENSO and PDO) revert to a warming phase, reinforcing rather than counteracting the effects of increasing CO2 concentration?

Mind you I have some doubts as to Easterbrook’s credibility. “Easterbrook noted that 32,000 American scientists have signed a statement that there’s no correlation between climate change and carbon dioxide levels.”

There is no such statement.

Unless Easterbrook is referring to the “petition” launched with a fake “article” tricked up to look like a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, who strongly objected, people need only to claim to have a batchelor’s degree (‘or equivalent’) in a science related disipline, (Dr Gerri Halliwell aka Ginger Spice is a “signatory”) There is no provision for people who signed in 1998 and have since changed their views to have their names reviewed, the dead who can never change their minds remain on the petition etc etc.

Philip, peer review can never be more than a technical proof reading exercise. After all, if someone is try to publish some new discovery, how can any reviewer judge this by known science. History is littered with major discoveries that could not get “peer reviewed”. In some cases, a person may not have any real “peers” in their specific area of expertise.

Newton was one of those peerless scientists, yet even he acknowledged that he was ‘one who discovers by building on previous discoveries’:

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

Most science is an exercise in making small increments which does not upset the existing applecart, and reviewers are those who are qualified to assess the rigour of the experimental method and data, and whether the author’s interpretation of the data and conclusions are justified.

Even what Kuhn called ‘paradigm shifting’ or revolutionary discoveries are based on existing scientific principles and mathematics and application of inductive reasoning.

Einstein was another peerless scientist who realised that Newton’s picture of the universe could not explain certain observations made subsequent to his death and had the unique insight to overturn existing assumptions about the supposed distinction between matter and energy, the nature of space and time, and the behaviour of light. But he was able to convince other scientists of his views because the mathematics and his reasoning followed accepted norms and accounted for the existing observations.

No progress in science would be possible is scientists, including those exceptional ones, could not demonstrate the validity of their arguments to other scientists.

Philip your view of peer review is clearly shaped by your own attitude to it, and it had the characteristics of honest appraisal when science was not political. The corruption of science by politics has affected all aspects of it, and those that want a “message” propagated instead of insight will use it as a gatekeeper to prevent contrary opinions from seeing the light of day and allowing like minded trash be given the power of authority which gets back to my original point near the start of this thread.

It does not matter what it has been, it only matters what it is. Peer review has been corrupted beyond the point it can ever be trusted again. It is much better that scientists present their work in an open way and let those who disagree provide repeatable evidence of where the work is wrong … if they can. Opinions are pointless in science.

No matter what tools are available to humans they are still human. The internet, smartphones, or computers it doesn’t matter because people do not evolve as fast as the technology they use.

Piltdown man took years to expose. Although we have the benefit of modern technology we don’t seem to be able to catch on any faster than we use to. It seems that although the internet has eased the grip that the TV networks use to have on the flow of information things haven’t really changed much. Now, the BS just flies through the internet in larger volumes with less oversight. Ant idiot with a website and an internet connection can lie his ass off and rarely be held accountable. Of course, if someone speaks to the truth in a manner that inconveniences anyone or anything with a vested interest in maintaining a fraud then that person is in for an organized systematic attack. The more money at stake the greater the attack will be.

BS research is nothing new. You can tell a warmist that his appeal to authority is not only illogical but is based upon a naive belief that if it’s peer reviewed then it is the unvarnished truth.

It always amazes me how the warmist will almost always believe that anyone that is a skeptic is on the payroll of “big oil.” I have often asked warmist on various sites to show me proof (e.g. SEC filings showing a money trail from oil companies to skeptics) and have never once had my request acknowledged let alone granted.

It always gets down to the money. If you do anything that may threaten the taxpayer funded gravy train for corrupt scientists you had better have your ass covered eight ways to Sunday because they will be coming after you. No, they won’t use clubs and pitchforks but they will use the internet as a cyber weapon. The media? They are more than happy to conspire as long as it is good for ratings and conforms to their political ideology!

Until this scam hits enough people in their wallets there will be no end to this fraud. Hopefully, sites such as Jo’s will hasten the day. one can only hope!

It always amazes me how the warmist will almost always believe that anyone that is a skeptic is on the payroll of “big oil.” I have often asked warmist on various sites to show me proof (e.g. SEC filings showing a money trail from oil companies to skeptics) and have never once had my request acknowledged let alone granted.

Too many warmists get their information and confirmation from such places as Sourcewatch and even Wiki, where the information is distorted by propagandists. Sourcewatch is horribly biased, is tied to people and organizations with a treacherous political agenda and Wiki can’t be trusted either. Based on this bad information, the Left side of warmism is equally if not more prone to their conspiracy theories and particularly about imagined funding of skeptics.

One of the earliest examples of this, appeared in an April edition of an electronics magazine (which may have been from the IEEE), published at a time when Integrated Circuits were new age.

It was entitled, “A New WOM, from Dignetics”, and referred to a Write-Only Memory (WOM) chip with applications in, “don’t-care buffer stores”, and “postmortem preemption systems”. The article was in the format of a technical specification sheet, that got more and more ludicrous the further one read. The closing remark said, “The device can be easily cooled by the application of a six-foot fan, mounted 1 half inch from the mounting bracket assembly.

I can sort of understand Piltdown man, though it was examined by experts over the years. It was never open for anyone to understand, or access to anyone to look at.

Global Warming, it accessible to everybody on the planet. It’s a simple observation based decision “is the weather getting worse in my lifetime?”. If you ignore the media and look at your own observations, after a number of years one could only conclude that it is not. I know the media will confuse some, but not all.

If you understand how ElNino’s works, you will see that the ElNino of 1998 actually interrupted a basically steady cycle of slight warming and cooling about mid way through 1997

The 1998 ElNino caused a step rise of approximately 0.3C to the atmosphere as it realised energy in an attempt to rebalance due to the lazy solar cycle.

Also note that the 2010 ElNino did not cause a step jump. In fact it settled to the same slight cooling trend as before. Very ominous. A protracted cooling is the very last thing the world needs at the moment. Electricity systems in many parts of the world are in a very fragile state due to renewable energy agenda.

But unfortunately, from here, the most likely scenario is a slight steepening of the cooling trend, because it is almost totally solar driven.

But as the ENSO contribution is not dependent on CO2 concentration, temperature data sets that are highly dependent on el nino peaks tell us nothing about the dependence of temperature upon CO2. None of the temperature trends for this century are statistically significant. But the data sets from 1979 which are not overly influenced by a single year or enso contributions in general, which tend to average out over 35 years are statistically significant and in agreement.

You are correct that the scaling of the CO2 data to the temperature data on the graphs are arbitrary, but the fact is that there is no evidence that the correlation is any worse recently compared to 1958 when Muana loa data began to be collected.

What is not arbitrary is the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 for the periods from 1850 (when global instrumental data became available), 1958 (when muana loa data began to be collected) and 1979 (when satellite data began) which are statistically significant and in agreement:

Can I suggest for people to remember that posters like JenJ are not here for a discussion. She is here for anyone stumbling on the blog and in two minds, hoping that a single cutting remark to one of the comments will ruin the reputation of all sceptics.

Keep replies to one point or two and relevant to a curious bystander, as the mod has done. She’ll never be convinced and most people reading don’t need more convincing.

Griss. CO2 does not re-emit radiation immediately. Some is re-emitted over time. Some of the energy is converted into kinetic energy within the molecules. This extra kinetic energy manifests itself as a rise in temperature of the sample.

If the C=O bond immediately re-emitted the infra red energy, there would be no strong absorbtion band in the infra red spectra of organic molecules containing the C=O bond.

Wrong. The greenhouse effect has been observed and documented over the past 150 years. Nobody seriously denies that CO2′s absorption spectrum works to trap heat.

There has been precisely no observed of documented examples of the greenhouse effect ever. Please produce just one for our education. All physicists will deny that any free flowing gas traps heat. It is just not a property of gas.

Griss. Your opinions seem to be at variance with those of respondents to the survey Jo highlighted recently:

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.

So…it means you’re out on a limb. Even your fellow-deniers pretend they don’t actually deny the science. Not very successfully, I grant you, but they are aware that denying there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect would pretty much end what little credibility they already have.

Interesting that you highlighted the phrases that you wanted people to read, but didn’t highlight the key finding of the survey.

Nobody who studies this subject disagrees that CO2 level are rising, but we have yet to see any correlation, let alone causation, with temperature.

You also misquote the second point where you omit the word “some” before the word “increase” to imply that all of the increase was anthropogenic – naughty boy. What about outgassing from the Oceans, what about emissions from volcanic vents. Sloppy propaganda, if it can be so easily dismissed. I do wish you guys would do it right.

You were clever to say that temperatures had increased over the 20th century, because on aggregate they did, lucky you didn’t say “the last two or three decades’ otherwise the answers would have been different, eh?

And finally, nobody argues that Carbon Dioxide is not a warming gas, we just think it is an insignificant one, compared to some others.

But the king hit (which I am sure you would have put in two-point font if you could have done) was that nobody thinks any of this really matters. It is just nature doing its thing, with a tiny bit of help from us, which is OK, given that we are also part of nature.

It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade,

That is, they found the rate of sea level rise is much smaller (since they added the Argos data?) even though the heat is hiding in the oceans, which it wasn’t doing before.

CO2 is increasing at a linear rate. Why is this, when industry and population is not linear?

There was a mini ice age, the peak of which was 140 years ago. The world has slowly warmed since then. My question is, so what? You would expect the world to warm when coming out of a cold period.

Sea levels have been rising uniformly since the little ice age. Of course measuring the average of a fluid on a rotating sphere is a challenge. The measurements are a bit up & down, and not everybody agrees with the numbers produced. But there is no accelerating increase in the rate of rise.

Actually Greg CO2 concentration is not increasing linearly, nor is temperature, although the noise in the latter makes it particularly difficult to distinguish the longer term trend over periods of a few decades or less.

=
JenJ…….(a bit like ‘BilB’)……”The data are unequivocal: CO2 is increasing, the globe is warming, sea level is rising.
There is no denying these basic facts.”
-
Looking at the data, we can see that global warming and sea level rise precede CO2 increase. We can also see that global warming can virtually stop while CO2 continues to rise.
-
The data are unequivocal.

I think you should show greater scepticism of the “recovery from the little ice age” story.

A “recovery”, by definition, has to be a movement of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction to the event it succeeds.

So, check it yourself – what was the temperature variation across the event some people call the “little ice age”? When, by definition, did the “recovery” end?
For bonus points: what evidence can you find that the “little ice age” was a global climate event?

#1 – Co2 is rising – true
#2 – The globe is warming – False It HAS warmed.
#3 – Sea levels are rising – As they have been for the past 150 years, 100 years longer than Global warming was SUPPOSED to be happening.

Actually, JenJ, sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. The aborigines did not cross Bass Strait by canoe, they walked. After the last ice age, which lasted 100,000 years, sea levels rose 125 METERS over about 15,000 years. They have continued to rise over the last 5,000 years at a much slower, variable rate of approximately 70 cm every 100 years. This is not shown uniformly around the world, as some land areas are sinking slowly while others are rising. The tide gauge for Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour shows only about a centimeter over the last 100 years, so I really don’t think you have to worry on that score. Same with Tuvalu, etc, etc. The recent noise from the Marshal Islands was all about sending money, not about actual physical science.

Of course weather is getting worse over our lifetimes.
Human perception of time is proportional to the total time experienced, so evenly spaced events seem to speed up over your lifetime.
Therefor weather will appear to be worse because severe events will appear to occur more frequently as a consequence of human time perception.

Eddy,
The amount of pseudo science around us (and our children and their children) is increasing alarmingly.
Some examples.
1. Womens’ cosmetics, often made from mud, sold at huge prices with the aid of chemical-sounding gibberish names.
2. Seaweed extracts sold as horticultural ‘tonics’ with a large profit margin. They have no adequate level of any known chemical hormone of an auxin type. They exist as a product of advertising effort.
3. Jewels like diamonds, diamond being a form of carbon, whose value is artificially maintained by marketing strategy in a captive production scenario. A girl’s best friend etc.
4. Homeopathic remedies, especially those where a supposed active chemical is diluted enormously, one of the big scientific cons that has got so far as being on medical rebate lists. It is sham 100%.
5. Unleaded petrol. It remains to be proved that traces of lead ingested by children will lower their IQs. Yet the whole petrol for cars industry incurred huge costs and lower efficiency because the lead was deemed to be harmful. It has not been shown to be at the levels associated with leaded petrol and its residues.
6. Foods with ‘anti oxidants’. This is entirely a marketing ploy. There is no nutritional chemistry known to support the claims.
7. Weight loss diets. There are so many of these, some contradicting others, that some must logically be wrong. Again, a large industry has developed around sets of scientific claims that are unfounded or unproven.
8. Water divining, dowsing etc. This has repeatedly been debunked, yet it refuses to lie down and die.
9. The claim in relation to nuclear energy that waste must be managed for 25,000 or 250,000 years. This was a greenpeace invention that has no connection with reality. It is adequate to loosely manage waste for a few hundred years at most, by which time the radiation becomes about the same as the ore from which it was (safely) mined.
10. Organic gardening, a current trendy, being push marketed by the ABC for some obscure reason. If organic gardening was so good, it should be adopted as the global norm. Unfortunately, if it was, millions of people would die from starvation.
11. The threat that masturbation causes blindness. How many million susceptible young children were scared out of their wits by catholic brothers who were masters of the art?

I could go on to 100, but that would get boring.

I blame it partly on inbred educational processes that have been captured and hijacked from time to time by perverted people who are willing to knowingly misuse science and scientific observation. Those who supervise and approve educational curricula are the bad boys and girls here. We need a system design for education that has no critical nodes that can be hijacked by ideologues.

Antioxidants have massive benefits as has been demonstrated in animal based studies.
Yes human studies have failed to build a statistically significant case because of the short time frames involved. You cannot undo damage with antioxidants, only prevent it in the first place which requires a lifetime of consumption. The Studies conducted did not consider the basis of action.
There is plenty of indirect evidence from nutritional studies of antioxidant rich foods such as tea/fruit not that I place much faith in nutritional studies.
If you hadn’t heard they have realised the fibre by itself has has no influence on reducing bowel cancer, it was in fact the other compounds in fibre rich foods that were responsible for the protective action, no prises for guessing what they are!

Huge topic. Antioxidants have been shown to have great value when used in animal feeds, especially those which are stored for long periods of time and are subject to oxidation: This damages nutrient,especially vitamins. Unsaturated fatty acids are very prone to oxidation and release rancid-smelling flavor aldehydes derived from the fatty acids- some of these can be detected at levels of only a few ppm, and will result in feed rejection by the animal. So you get unpalatable feed, toxic and rancid compounds produced, reduced digestibility of amino acids, damaged vitamins, loss of fat soluble vitamins….

So the main role of antioxidants? Extending storage times.

Is eating them always good for you?
There is not abundant literature on this, but the logical answer is that this is very likely to be the case. These are very reactive molecules, and can affect metabolic functions. There is a published study on specially bred mice which were ‘designed’ to produce excess levels of a natural antioxidant. This had severely detrimental effects on heart function. The mechanism was studied in detail and found to be due to severe reductive stress brought about by excess natural antioxidants: Rajasekaran et al.: “Human aB-Crystallin Mutation Causes Oxido-Reductive Stress and Protein Aggregation Cardiomyopathy in Mice.” Publishing in Cell 130, 427–439, August 10, 2007. DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.044 http://www.cell.com

There is also repeated reference of human health sites on the internet advising people to not dose themselves to excess with readily available “antioxidant health supplements”.

Effects- prebiotic effects, encouraging the growth of useful or benign bacteria, and the products of bacterial fermentation, such as butyrate and proprionate, short chain fatty acids that play a major role in cellular energy metabolism, immune functions, act as an energy source for enterocytes..

Well, let’s just say fibre is good for you, but it is not about ‘scrubbing the bowel”.

The trouble with Climate Science papers though, is that while the results are largely computer generated, they are processed, massaged, melded and published by morons and I don’t know if Cyril yet has an algorithm for that.

Another major problem with so called climate science papers (which are nothing of the sort – they are global warming frauds) is they make so many assumptions. So many in fact that they are totally useless. Depending on the assumptions used one could predict just about anything, from a major new ice age to a scorched earth environment, with literally thousands of variations in between. Might as well use astrology – probably would be better.

You are far too generous Joe.
While a there are copious collections of Climate Science papers worthy of a Social Science PhD, there are also many real science papers that only pay lip service to the Global Warming meme , to satisfy their funding commitments.

Jen your loyalty is admirable but misguided. If you replicate someone’s methodological errors to produce a hockey stick, you will produce a hockey stick. That doesn’t prove anything other than there are an awful lot of Climate Scientists who are poorly trained in statistical methods and/or who think it more important to act as cheer leaders to support their crumbling theory.

As for Mann’s work not being debunked, if you limit your reading to Michael Mann’s tomes and SkepticalScience and Wikepedia I can forgive you having that impression. But the rest of the scientific world accept that:

1. The Medieval Warm Period actually happened.
2. Bristle Cone proxy temperature data is inherently unreliable and particularly so when you selectively exclude samples.
3. You can’t whack on actual temperature records on to the end of your proxy temperature graph just because your proxy temperature records show the opposite to what you want and call that ‘scientifically accurate’, even if you say that’s what you did in the tiny print.
4. The Little Ice Age was much more pronounced than is shown in Mann’s hockey stick graph.

Mann himself has said his work was completely exonerated by a number of enquiries in his defamation case against Steyn. This will be shown to be patently untrue along with his claim to have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Jaymez, Jaymez, Jaymez…imagine an ego soooo big, you think you know better than the experts in an area in which you are untrained….

1. The mediaeval warm period wasn’t warmer than today, and I don’t think anybody has proved that there was any such *global* event, in any case. Maybe I’m wrong…..have *you* checked?

2. Weirdly, the bristle-cone studies give the *same* results as the ice core studies. And the bore-hole studies as well. Amazing! It’s almost as if the bristle-cone studies were reliable, eh? And it’s almost as if you have no idea what you’re talking about….

Not sure where you got that idea.
McKitrick and someone-or-other published an amateur-hour paper full of mistakes that had to be withdrawn. Maybe somebody told you what the conclusions of this paper were and you weren’t sceptical enough to double-check if it was credible?

As far as I am aware, a panel was convened by the US government to study Mann’s statistics, and it came up with some minor suggestions for better stats that didn’t change the results. Pretty good work by Mann was the consensus of the *real* statistical experts.

As Vince has pointed out, US congress commisioned an exhaustive investigation into the Hockey stick controversy which supported Mann’s approach and contrary to assertions here, similar studies by other groups.

It specifically found that McKitrick’s criticisms of Mann did not refute his findings:

As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press).

I think, Philip, that they have responded to this information with words to the effect of, “No, those investigations didn’t give the results that match our pre-conceived notions, therefore we reject them.”.

Because science-unaware ideologues are *much* more likely to be correct than a US congressional investigation.

They have to do something useful with those massive computers they have purchased with public funding.

Since they have proven that the massive computers cannot accurately simulate the climate, they might as well use them to simulate the scientific papers that they would have published, had the massive computers been able to accurately simulate the climate.

JenJ – You’re just [Snip] trying to cause a stink…basically a non starter. You have nothing to contribute and I just get a laugh out of your plain old stupid comments. They say laughter is the best medicine and believe you me your last 2 or 3 post had me rolling in stitches. I know I will sleep well tonight. Thanks for those laughs!!!

Climate science is formed by a very large body of serious work that has accumulated at an accelerating rate over the last 150 years. Calling it “wrong” is not the sign of somebody who has seriously engaged with the facts.

Oh, and calling me [names] is both charming and also your admission you have nothing better to offer. Well done.[Moderators sometimes fail to pick up when people have not self edited -Fly]

I think you really big problem JenJ is that you read the stuff that is not genuine climate science but claims it is and tries it’s damnedest tp pass as science but fails utterly to pass the test.
So for starters lets look at just one item, the IPCC’s AR5′s Summary for Policy Makers Oceans and see what the AR5 has to say about that so deadly dangerous sea level rise ,

It is virtually certain that globally averaged sea level has risen over the
20th century, with a very likely mean rate between 1900 and 2010 of
1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 and 3.2 [2.8 and 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993
and 2010.
This assessment is based on high agreement among multi-
ple studies using different methods, and from independent observing
systems (tide gauges and altimetry) since 1993. It is likely that a rate
comparable to that since 1993 occurred between 1920 and 1950, pos-
sibly due to a multi-decadal climate variation, as individual tide gauges
around the world and all reconstructions of GMSL show increased
rates of sea level rise during this period.

Although local vertical land motion can cause even larger rates of sea level rise (or fall) relative to
the coastline, it is very likely that this does not affect the estimates of
the global average rate, based on multiple estimations of the average
with and without VLM corrections.

It is virtually certain that interannual and decadal changes in the
large-scale winds and ocean circulation can cause significantly higher
or lower rates over shorter periods at individual locations, as this has
been observed in tide gauge records around the world.

Warming of the upper 700 m of the ocean has very likely contributed an average of 0.6
[0.4 to 0.8] mm yr–1 of sea level change since 1971. Warming between
700 m and 2000 m has likely been contributing an additional 0.1 mm
yr–1 [0 to 0.2] of sea level rise since 1971, and warming below 2000
m likely has been contributing another 0.1 [0.0 to 0.2] mm yr–1 of sea
level rise since the early 1990s.

It is very likely that the rate of mean sea level rise along Northern
European coastlines has accelerated since the early 1800s and that this
has continued through the 20th century, as the increased rate since
1875 has been observed in multiple long tide gauge records and by
different groups using different analysis techniques. It is likely that sea
level rise throughout the NH has also accelerated since 1850, as this is
also observed in a smaller number of gauges along the coast of North
America.
Two of the three time series based on reconstructing GMSL
from tide gauge data back to 1900 or earlier indicate a significant
positive acceleration, while one does not.
The range is –0.002 to 0.019
mm yr–2, so it is likely that GMSL has accelerated since 1900.

Finally, it is likely that extreme sea levels have increased since 1970, largely as a
result of the rise in mean sea level.
[ end ]

That is the IPCC’s official scientific position on MSLR.

Now an increase of 1.7 to 3.2 mms / year in global sea levels equates to when using the IPCC’s highest observed increases of 3.2 mms/year to less than 280 mms rise in sea levels by 2100.

Thats just a bit under half way up the calf of my leg by 2100.
I think the future generations will be able to handle that.

If of course we use the lowest IPCC Sea level increase at 1.7 ms / year then by 2100 we will have seen an increase in sea levels of 87 mms, about ankle height.
If you are worried about the effect that will have on the Earth in another 86 years then you have a real mentality problem

If you want to argue the science there are plenty more IPCC science based conclusions that I might take some time out in the future to serve up for your consideration unless of course you might like to do some real genuine actual climate science homework yourself instead of like all your propagandized buddies who just believe the first climate catastrophe smooth talking sooth sayer that appears on the scene.

That of course assumes a continued rise. The Chinese have some really old data that may indicate a periodicity in sea level, and if that periodicity continued it would ‘top-out’ around mid century, then start dropping.

Sure thing is, none of us, or our children will be around to even notice any change in sea level.

The barnacles are still growing in the same place on the back of South Cronulla baths I remember them being 25 odd years ago.

You are quite correct there Griss as there is increasing evidence not widely published as yet, [ it buggers up all the climate catastrophists to let that sort of research get into the wide spread public domain as it might affect their funding and pull with authorities ] that sea levels changes might be quite cyclic over periods of a number of decades.
Here’s one paper out of a number that looks at the cyclic nature of sea level change fromPopular Technology net.

1] We examine long tide gauge records in every ocean basin to examine whether a quasi 60-year oscillation observed in global mean sea level (GMSL) reconstructions reflects a true global oscillation, or an artifact associated with a small number of gauges. We find that there is a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th Century, and that it appears in every ocean basin. Averaging of tide gauges over regions shows that the phase and amplitude of the fluctuations are similar in the North Atlantic, western North Pacific, and Indian Oceans, while the signal is shifted by 10 years in the western South Pacific. The only sampled region with no apparent 60-year fluctuation is the Central/Eastern North Pacific. The phase of the 60-year oscillation found in the tide gauge records is such that sea level in the North Atlantic, western North Pacific, Indian Ocean, and western South Pacific has been increasing since 1985–1990. Although the tide gauge data are still too limited, both in time and space, to determine conclusively that there is a 60-year oscillation in GMSL, the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level rise.

As for the Chinese records, a parallel is found in Japan, where stones are set into the hillside above Fukushima. They are written in the old Japanese script, but when translated read, “Tsunami warning: Do not build below this line”. These stones were, of course, ignored, because modern science knows better.

Jenj: Regarding [being called names]; I simply draw attention to my previous response to the criticism by the moderator of your lack of supplying supporting evidence (as opposed to posts by so many “skeptics” here), and my remarks concerning those posts that contain nothing but personal abuse.

When they resort to that, they have thrown in the towel on the scince.[You do not have to be a scientist to have an opinion. If you hold yourself up to be a scientist however, then you are expected to be able to support your opinion with evidence -Fly]

It’s very sad to see science being discredited this way, thanks to the global warming alarmists and scam artists. BTW, I refuse to call them climate change scientists. They are nothing of the sort. They are global warming “scientists”, or more accurately global warming fraudsters.

JenJ:
I assume you are fairly young and haven’t had much experience at recognising implausible explanations. Here are a few tips.

1. Anything involving imminent doom, especially when the dates have to be extended time and time again.

2. Anything which involves the propagator getting large sums of money, usually yours.

3. Anything which starts off as “non mainstream knowledge” and the small group of supporters maintain secret methods and ‘proofs’ and immediately resort to abuse when these are challenged by experts.

The first includes religious ‘end of the world’ cults (can include 2 & 3 also), the Y2K problem, Listeria, Dioxin, The Coming Ice Age and various Stock Market crashes/coming World depressions (only avoidable by buying the convenient book or course or investment). These latter may seem to be true, and may well happen some day, but the initial timing is usually widely inaccurate, so the Date of Doom is repeated put off into the near future. The same with the Coming Global Warming, which we were assured in 1972, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1997, 2002 etc. would bring serious consequences in 5 or 10 years. The IPCC has now admitted that these won’t show until after 2070.

As for the third, I assure you we have recognised their talent and expertise; that’s why we rate them so poorly. A small collection of third rate ‘scientists’ desperately trying to prop up a failing scheme.

Graeme, I just searched the IPCC AR4 paper for the words, “imminent doom” and I got 0 hits. Apparently you have a problem with something that isn’t the problem that climate scientists are researching and publishing their academic work about.

Maybe you are old and confused.

Sort it out.

[Clearly you haven't read the many peer reviewed papers which are referenced in the IPCC reports which may not use the words 'imminent doom' but describe such outcomes from predicted catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Glaciers and Arctic ice disappearing, the Antarctic Ice Sheet sliding off, malaria out breaks, tens of millions of climate refugees, massive crop failures, droughts, desertification, there's some words you can search on. - Mod]

Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, our gracious hostess and her beloved, Anthony Watts and Patrick Moore are just some of those former believers who CAN see the wood for the trees. There’s always the chance of a Damascene conversion, however slight. Furthermore, more open minds than JenJ may follow the link though I do agree that Lysenko-ists such as JenJ are a forlorn hope.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

I agree, but science is not about “proof”. It is about evidence and the balance of probabilities.

Moore goes on:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

He then states:

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate.

Note the pea and thimble trick. The IPCC statement is about the past based on observation and theory (models) : “has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Moore converts this to a statement about the future.

Models are constructed by matching observed data to theory as understood and used to predict future observations and events. Some models are more accurate than others, usually in inverse proportion to the complexity of the system and are improved with better understanding of the system.

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Then:

many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball.

True. but nobody claims they are. They are a theoretical explanation informed and developed to account for observations using known scintific constraints. They are regularly used in science to succesfully predict future observations and interactions. I have been involved in the use drug receptor models that are used in “intelligent drug design”.

To assert that models are “no better than crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.” is pure bunk.

Then:

The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950…Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

But it does have an explanation. AGW theory clearly states that up to the mid 20th century, the concentration of CO2 and consequent warming were too small to be distinguishable from natural forcings which had indeed been operating earlier, including the period 1910-1940, and continue to do so.

Hansen, in advance, nominated the 1980s as the decade when a statistically significant anthropogenic signal would be distinguishable from natural forcings. See figs 5 and 7 here:

… science is not about “proof”. It is about evidence and the balance of probabilities.

You get a “balance of probabilities” from computer models, run multiple times, with different configurations of parameters. It allows you to identify which configuration comes closest to your hypothesis. You then go on to investigate the real-world factors that would result in that configuration.

This is a perfectly valid research technique, when you have a large number of unknown unknowns. It identifies the problem(s). It does not provide any answers. Thus, there is no pea and thimble trick. Moore is telling it like he sees it.

Models are constructed by matching observed data to theory

And this is where Climate Science stands out, because the rest of Physics does this the other way around. Everywhere else, the theory comes first, and is described in terms of the criteria that would falsify the theory, if met. Thus you can never prove a theory correct, but it takes only one falsifying factor to prove it wrong. Einstein understood this. It is a pity you do not.

[The models are then] used to predict future observations and events

Which demonstrates … what, exactly? The predictions could be met purely by chance. The models could be riddled with confirmation bias, how do you know they are not? You can even construct post hoc rationale to explain variations between the prediction and reality (Ask Dr Trenberth about that).

If you are looking for confirmation, which is what you suggest, then you can get that purely by chance. In research, proving a theory tells you nothing, because you have no way to demonstrate the lack of confirmation bias.

In engineering or applied science, which I think is your field, then you are working under a known set of constraints. The conductive, capacitive, and inductive properties of electronic components are related in known formulaic ways. In chemistry, the valence bonds between various chemicals are well understood.

But neither of these are chaotic systems. The climate is a chaotic system, made up from an indeterminate number of other chaotic systems that move in and out of phase, in multiple ways, and various frequencies. It therefore needs to be approached from a viewpoint of not knowing what you don’t know. And that is pure research, which must be based on the falsification of hypotheses.

How do you carve a statue of an Elephant? You take a very large block of stone, and cut away all of the bits that look like they don’t belong to an elephant.

“To assert that models are “no better than crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.” is pure bunk.”

In the case of climate models, they are almost certainly worse than a crystal ball, or throwing bones or tossing a die.

They have now widened out the range of their projections to posthumously include the non-warming this century. Next step will be to widen the range of projections even further to account for the coming cooling.

Judging by some of your comments I gather that English is not your native language.
For you – arrived is past or near present in meaning, whereas imminent refers to a near future event.

e.g. various believers in runaway man made Global Warming have said that it will occur in 5 & 10 years (i.e. it is IMMINENT). However it hasn’t ARRIVED after 42 years, so there must be doubts about the accuracy of their claims that it will come in a few years.

Wasn’t there a programme around about 10 years ago that was used to generate social sciences (postmodern, of course)papers? I even think it came out of an Australian university (Melbourne?). Unfortunately, the crud it generated was indistinguishable from the entrants in the late-lamented Dennis Dutton’s bad writing competitions.

Are you under the false impressions that McIntyre has ever conducted any science research, let alone published any research papers?

You should do a bit of research.

—-

JenJ — are you under the false impression that you can keep posting logical fallacies and get published here? Read the guidelines. Look up
“ad hom”. (Then do some research, McIntyre has published papers anyway.) – Jo

COMPUTER GENERATED MARXIST THOUGHT
I wrote a programme, which I call Kaleidoscope, to generate Marxist speech. It has a lexicon with paragraphs of canned thought and stock phrases. The programme picks texts from the lexicon with a random number generator and sews them into prose. It can write a new twelve page speech in a second, with the flick of a finger. The speeches are readable and require modest editing. I can email a sample to anyone interested. Call alan.neil@lexys.com.br.
With Kaleidoscope Fidel Castro would save the expense of keeping a stable of party hacks as ghost writers. Combined with a text to voice programme Kaleidoscope would put Castro himself out of a job. The loud speaker network of Cuba would broadcast daily four hour rants long after Castro is gone. The rewriting of history according to party line, the job of the Ministry of Truth in 1984, could be done with a few REPLACE commands.
I wrote Kaleidoscope as a joke. With some improvements to create plots and characters, Kaleidoscope could be put to honest commercial use a pulp fiction generator.

With all the advances in medical implants and now the ability to manufacture the pseudo thought mentalities as described by Allan above we really are already at the beginning of the age of the Cyborgs where “machine intelligence” eventually supersedes human thought and expression.

Asimov was perhaps not as far ahead of his times as most have imagined with his I Robot series of science fiction futures.

Given the advances in nano technology for data storage plus the continuing rapid advances in quantum computing the probabilities of matching and significantly exceeding the abilities of the human mind ie “Machine intelligence” are also now becoming a probability sometime within this century.

Asimov’s “I Robot” will then be a reality which the human race will inevitably have to deal with.

The manner of dealing with this probability of a future “machine intelligence” far exceeding mankind’s levels of mentality will define the future of humanity .

Don’t think it will be dull at all Franny as any machine intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence then runs into the moral and ethical problems that we as humans have to solve on a minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day process all the time.
And no machine intelligence as measured against just a pure computational mechanism would be complete without that moral, ethical and compassionate compass built in which are intrinsic to “intelligence” as we know it.

As just one extreme example which I personally don’t know the answer too and most definitely would not wish to have to decide on .
Does an intelligence allow or condemn ten innocents to death to save a hundred thousand or a million or two in the times ahead ?

Or does one take the quoted Stalin’s psychopathic route of ;
Ten deaths are a tragedy.
A million deaths are a statistic.

What decisions does a machine intelligence make when deciding the fate of a machine intelligence just like itself with all the chances of a pay back by those other machine intelligences allied with the one being judged.

What are the judgments, the moralities, the ruthless justification and realities of any decision that will be made either way by machine intelligences in those sorts of moral dilemmas
Two machine intelligences with different priorities just as humans have might well come to opposite conclusions.

Thankyou Franny, your comment reminds me of list book for a political studies course I attended back in the 60′s( I know if you can remember the 60′s you weren’t really there) Anyway the author was Bernard Crick and the title was” In Defence of Politics”,I still refer to this book from time to time,the alternatives to politics are worse than the compromises we have to make to live in a civilised nation and as you state we can always boot them out at the ballot box.

Slightly off topic but… the “97% Consensus” used to be from a 2 question online survey ultimatley reduced to 77 responses but now there seems to be another “97% Consensus” derived from reviewing the meta data of peer reviewed climate related papers. Is my understanding of this (in a nutshell) correct? If so, does anyone have a link with background on the switch? Thx.

Is the UQ comfortable with people spruiking ‘science’ by consensus in their name which is illogical and simply wrong? At what point are they going to try and salvage some credibility as an academic institution?

That was rather in the having nothing serious to say sense. I should have said cartoonist (as he styles himself) but that doesn’t do justice to the full sense of worthlessness while still being generous. Nobody said anything about funny though.

The problem isn’t peer review, the problem is too many ‘scientists’; perhaps a symptom of over population and the welfare state? Government funded research is, after all, some sort of esoteric welfare, no? Keeping the unemployable occupied by allowing them to think and gibber.

Louis Hissnik
I heartily concur with that comment Louis and had come to that line of thought some time ago.
.
Science as in government tax payer funded science today, fits a government type bureaucratic department or quasi scientific organization [ scientific quango ] rather than an entirely separate means of advancing science and civilisation as most of us understand it.

Science is now just churning out forest consuming and electron consuming garbage at about the same rate and at about the same levels of verisimilitude as any major government bureaucracy and with about the same effect and impact on the body corporate.
All to do these days with the aim and goal of justifying it’s funding and status within the governmental circles as done in any other government funded organisations.

And to hell with the populace who are forced to pay for all of this crap.. They no longer count for much in government funded ivory tower, never look out of the window science.

Sadly for this old admirer of science of the past, science for many scientists and scientific disciplines today is rapidly descending into not much more than just another government funded sinecure no different in intent, purpose or outcomes or lack of than that of any other such departmental sinecure.
And as with any government department when this gets too blatant a major restructuring and clean out becomes the only mandatory fix for the problems.

Science has been elevated to a very high status in the eyes of the public for the century past but the high pedestal upon which the public elevated science to is becoming rotten to the core and consequently science in it’s many and varied forms is now descending down to the usual levels of cynicism that is extended to the public’s assessments of honesty and integrity of commerce, industry, finance, law and government.
Therfore science in the future should expect a similar level of public surveillance of it’s mores and ethics and integrity as any other sector of our society.
And if it fails the tests of public approval tests, that of the public that pays it’s bills then science can expect nothing more than the same treatment handed out to any other sector of society.

Thanks to the revelations of the scamming and corruption of science, particularly climate science, through the means of the all pervading internet where the flaws in the claims of the superior integrity and ethics of science have been shown for what they are , just another set of unprovable self righteous spinning pronouncements trying to cover up the real situation, Science’s salad days of a high public status and an unquestioning belief in it’s superior ethics, integrity and mores are over and gone probably forever .

All this as the realisation dawns that scientists are no smarter, nor dumber, as honest or not, as ethical or just frauds and scammers , with full integrity or lacking any such integrity as any other human enterprise or persons.
Scientists are no different than the rest of us and should be regarded and treated accordingly just as is done across the rest of those who make up our society.

The thermodynamics of planetary atmospheres is a very specialised field in which major advances have been made since about the year 2002 when some physicists began to realise there is a fundamental fallacy in the garbage promulgated by the IPCC, namely that their assumption of isothermal conditions is wrong, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies isentropic conditions prevail, thus smashing the GH conjecture.

Furthermore, the concept of “pseudo scattering” of radiation is also just starting to be understood. I was one of the pioneers in this field with my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (Douglas J Cotton) published on several websites in March 2012.

Busted!
Well I aint no ‘peer‘ but, when I review this “settled climate science”, the contradictory observed results show that the
“settled climate science” is gibberish of the highest order.

NYT – FEBRUARY 14, 2014Kevin Trenberth: “
With respect to snow, one expects that the snow season gets shorter at both ends (more rain), but that snow amounts could be larger in mid winter.

So it is not a surprise to me to see more snow in winter, but the global warming signal should be in the snow pack in late spring.

John Walsh added this:
Kevin’s snow scenario is exactly what the global climate models show: a shorter snow season everywhere, but increases in maximum snow water equivalent …”

Accuweather - February 25, 2014
While spring officially begins on March 20, Pastelok and crew expect mid-winter style cold to continue more often than not until the third week in March for most areas east of the Rockies.
~ ~ ~Bonus Quote from above:“With respect to snow, one expects that the snow season gets shorter at both ends (more rain), but that snow amounts could be larger in mid winter.”

Oh no! The Vince Whirlwind bot seems to be missing several hundred lines of code.
Is there a programmer in the house?
I’d suggest looking at the keyword look-up subroutine or the word conjugate function. It no longer recognizes the number of years in the phrase “this century”.
It also seems to have developed a preference to not participate in any conversation, as it requests that posts which are untrue should not appear. This was not part of its original programming.

Rereke,
If you can tell the difference between a warmist and a bot then I dips me lid to you.
It’s been my experience that having a discussion with a warmist is like wasting time playing with “Eliza” the artificial intelligence joke.

JenJ, you really do need to do some reading if you want to contribute to this blog site,your comments to date display assertive ignorance that unfortunately,most likely cannot be overcome, however in the unlikely event that you would do some homework,can I recommend a short book”The Climate Caper Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming” by Garth Paltridge. This man, an atmospheric physicist of note, gently leads readers and bears of small brain like myself through the maze of fact and fiction surrounding the climate debate that causes so much acrimony and confusion.

-
JenJ……….”Er, right, because observations of one winter in one place is all you need to deny there is a hglobal trend occurring?”
-
Yeah, Jen, you stick to fashion and let other people do the science!

“In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

CO2 cannot cause any warming, full stop. It’s blatantly obvious at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there’s no CO2, no direct solar radiation and no surface, yet it’s hotter than Earth but nearly 30 times further from the Sun.

William Connelly is stumped now by Wikipedia of all things, where he loves to edit to give things a nice greenhouse flavour.

The new Wikipedia Second Law statement clearly demolishes that “net” effect business that tries to claim a single one-way radiation process does not have to obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Wiki now reads …

“Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased.”[

***Hannam obviously cherry-picks his opening to diss the govt’s direct action plan, in the latest “study” to convince us we MUST follow the CAGW-proscribed remedies!

26 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Geo-engineering no solution to dangerous climate change, study finds
Greening deserts in Australia and North Africa with millions of trees would only have a modest impact on climate change, with potentially significant side-effects, new international research finds.
The study by scientists at Germany’s Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel examined five potential methods of climate engineering as a means of heading off the worst impacts of global warming…
“Atmospheric CO2 continues to increase rapidly and still reaches more than twice the current level by the end of the century in all simulations,” the study led by oceanographer David Keller found…
The study did not examine the costs of the different methods.
Climate engineering does not appear to be an alternative option to cutting CO2 emissions, the scientists conclude, “although it could possibly be used to compliment mitigation”, providing the costs and benefits are taken into account.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/geoengineering-no-solution-to-dangerous-climate-change-study-finds-20140226-33ggg.html

25 Feb: Guardian: John Vidal: Geoengineering side effects could be potentially disastrous, research shows
Comparison of five proposed methods shows they are ineffective, alter weather systems or could not be safely stopped
But researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany, modelled these five potential methods and concluded that geoengineering could add chaos to complex and not fully understood weather systems. Even when applied on a massive scale, the most that could be expected, they say, is a temperature drop of about 8%.
The potential side effects would be potentially disastrous, say the scientists, writing in Nature Communications…
***”The paper sounds a timely warning about the abject stupidity of relying upon climate engineering solutions when reducing our reliance on carbon-based energy systems is the only sensible option,” said Dr Matt Watson, a lecturer in geophysical natural hazards at Bristol University…http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/geoengineering-side-effects-potentially-disastrous-scientists

AS Keith 1412 writes in the comments: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

24 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Ellie Zolfagharifard: Are YOU a ‘global warming Nazi’? People who label sceptics ‘deniers’ will kill more people than the Holocaust, claims scientist
Claim was made by Roy Spencer, a professor at University of Alabama
‘When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it,’ he wrote in a blog post
His reasoning for using the word ‘Nazi’ is because climate activists are, he claims, anti-capitalist fascists
Barack Obama, David Cameron and Richard Branson are all ‘global warming Nazis’.
This is according to scientist Roy Spencer, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a vocal denier of man-made climate change…
VIDEO CAPTION: The radical claim was made by climate scientist Roy Spencer, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a vocal denier of man-made climate change.
PHOTO CAPTION: David Cameron is known to have used the term ‘climate change denier’ along with Barack Obama, Richard Branson, Nick Clegg and Ed Davey
INSERT – PHOTO HEADING: NICK CLEGG: ‘I’M ENTITLED TO CALL TORY CLIMATE SCEPTICS “DENIERS”‘
Use of the term ‘climate deniers’ became controversial after John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister, said that the term was used with ‘malice aforethought’.
But In November, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he is entitled to call Tory climate sceptics ‘deniers’ despite a warning by the government’s chief scientist that it is an abusive term…
INSERT 2 HEADING: WHERE DID THE HOLOCAUST LINK COME FROM?
‘Deniers’ are termed people that believe that global warming is either not occurring, or is not associated with the man-made rise in carbon dioxide.
They have been heavily criticised for being pseudoscientific, despite an alleged overwhelming consensus on the reality of climate change.
Journalists and policitican – including environmentalist George Monbiot – have described such scepticism as a form of denialism.
Several commentators have also compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, although others who believe in man-made climate change have condemned such comparisons as inappropriate and trivialising Holocaust denial.
Monbiot wrote in his Guardian opinion column that he uses the term for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests.
Monbiot often refers to a ‘denial industry’, however other commentators have been described climate change ‘deniers’, including politicians and writers, who are not obviously linked to any industry group.
In recent years the term has been associated with a series of views challenging the scientific consensus on issues including the health effects of smoking and the relationship between HIV and AIDS, along with climate change.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2566659/Are-global-warming-Nazi-People-label-sceptics-deniers-kill-MORE-people-Holocaust-claims-scientist.html

Ha! Ha! Every field has those deep, detailed, unintelligible, narrow focus papers which no one reads, assuming they are obscure and of interest to someone else. However it makes you wonder how many have gone through in many journals over many years. Some which were not computer generated at all. So much for peer review.

It sounds like every researcher’s dream: two or more agencies are falling over each other to fund your grant proposal.

But for those tempted to accept funding for the same piece of research from more than one agency, grant fraud charges brought by the US authorities on 31 January are a sober warning. The incident has also sparked renewed calls for funding agencies to work harder to avoid grant duplication.

The recent charges were brought against Craig Grimes, who until 2010 was a professor of electrical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. Last month, he pleaded guilty to charges that included accepting grants from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund the same research on solar conversion of carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons. “It is not a problem to apply for funds for the same research at different funding agencies, but it is illegal to accept and use the funding,” says Christine Boesz, a former inspector-general for the NSF. Such duplicate funding is banned in many leading scientific nations. Boesz says that there is no way of knowing how prevalent the problem is, but that cases tend to come to light only if peer reviewers spot similarities in grant applications.

25 Feb: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Australia’s renewables adviser scrapes the bottom of the climate denialist barrel
Dick Warburton cites a long-debunked petition to argue climate scientists are split on the causes of global warming
PHOTO CAPTION: Former Caltex Australia chairman Dick Warburton at the Caltex annual general meeting in 2003. Warburton will review the Australian Government’s renewable energy target, but refuses to accept the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming…
IF you look down there at the bottom of the barrel and see the deep gouge marks in the oak, you might find a trace of DNA left by the scraping fingers of Dick Warburton.
That’s the place where Warburton found his “evidence” that the world’s scientists are split on whether or not climate change is being caused by humans.
The evidence in question is known as the Oregon Petition – one of the feeblest factoids in the climate science denial hymnbook that’s cited almost as often as it has been debunked…
Once those people with no studied expertise in areas of climate were removed, the number fell to just 0.1 per cent of US graduates – and this was being generous. Skeptical Science found there were likely only 39 people classed as climatologists who signed…
(ATTACKS MAURICE NEWMAN)
(ATTACKS DAVID MURRAY)
***Prime Minister Tony Abbott claims in public that he accepts that humans are having an impact on the climate, but publicly denies the science linking human-caused climate change to bushfires and droughts…
(ATTACKS NICK MINCHIN)
Minchin thinks human-caused climate change is a scare story. (AS OPPOSED TO A MILLION SCARY STORIES, READFEARN?)In June 2011 during his final Parliamentary speech after 18 years as a Senator, Minchin mused in jest that he was “contemplating the foundation of an organisation called ‘The Friends of Carbon Dioxide’”.
Tony Abbott looks to be forming the “Friends of Carbon Dioxide” all by himself.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/24/climate-change-dick-warburton-sceptic-australia-renewable-energy-target-review

Hilarious, in the article to which you refer the warmist true character comes out quickly – its about the depopulation of the planet, as long as it is not them.

I say lead by example. I will donate to any de-population warmist who phones in the next 30 minutes a recycled Telstra rope or a recycled red wine barrel full of grey water or an 1886 Martini-Enfield rifle with .303 caliber bullet both manufactured well before the CO2 increases of today or a shank made from my recycled toothbrush. The 50th de-population warmist to call can choose to ride in my industrial size green waste mulcher, the experience last’s a little longer if you choose feet first, but the choice is yours.

your newspaper just loves Shell, doesn’t it? they care so much for the climate, don’t they, Graham? why, here they are taking 50 million quid of taxpayers’ money to save the planet. what CAGW heroes they are:

24 Feb: Guardian: Severin Carrell: Boost for North Sea oil and gas unveiled as UK cabinet meets in Scotland
Energy secretary also announces carbon capture investment in Scotland as part of campaign against independence
The new North Sea efficiency programmes could increase oil and gas production by up to 4bn barrels and £200bn over the next 20 years, said Ed Davey, the UK energy secretary, as he visited Peterhead power station.
He confirmed on his visit that Shell’s gas-fired power station at Peterhead had been awarded about £50m to install new carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment – the first time in the world a gas-fired power station would be fitted with this technology. He said it would capture 1m tonnes of CO2 a year…http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/uk-invest-carbon-capture-alex-salmond-ed-davey-independent-scotland

you just LOOOOVE Barack Obama, don’t you, Graham? he is so cool & such a fracking, nuclear CAGW hero, isn’t he, Graham?

July 2013: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Obama’s rhetoric makes climate action a simpler question of right and wrong
Will other world leaders take a cue from US President who is making climate change action a question of ethics and morals?
PHOTO CAPTION: President Barack Obama wipes perspiration from his face as he speaks about climate change in Washington.
THERE are a lot of decisions in life that are easier because we know the difference between right and wrong – it’s why we wouldn’t steal a biscuit from a poor homeless orphan or kick away a pensioner’s walking stick as they’re about to step on to a pedestrian crossing.
For these reasons, stealing stuff that’s not yours or assaulting pensioners (or anyone else for that matter) is considered by the community at large to be ethically or morally wrong as well as being against the law.
Recent rhetorical flourishes from father-of-two Barack Obama, the President of the United States, have tossed climate change into this same bucket of ethical decisions.
Obama has tugged at the needle of our moral compasses several times with soundbites loaded with ethical ordnance. Take these examples from his recent climate change speech in Washington and his weekly White House address. -

- Some day our children and our children’s children will look us in eye they and they will ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer and more stable world? I want to be able to say, yes we did… Decades of carefully reviewed science tells us our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on the world we leave to our children… those of us in positions of responsibility will need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of our children… The question is not whether we need to act. The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late…. We will be judged – as a people, as a society, and as a country – on where we go from here… –

Climate campaigners will point to a mismatch between the words and his ongoing support for fracked gas, but taking such an emotive position on the issue hands a very large metaphorical stick to campaigners with which they can beat their President if and when his actions fail to match the words…
(YOU FINISH WITH A MESSAGE TO THE AUSTRALIAN GOVT)
So are decisions made now and into the future to increase these risks by digging up and burning more fossil fuels ethically questionable? If you take your cue from Obama’s words, then the answer may be yes.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/jul/02/obama-climate-change-ethics-morals-speech

Graham, surely this is a different Royal Dutch Shell? and a non-US Chevron?

Nov 2013: Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell Sign Shale Gas Production Contracts with Ukraine
Several large U.S. companies are expecting to sign contracts for shale gas production in Ukraine, Victora Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, announced, as quoted by BTA. According to Nuland, U.S. business is striving to strengthen its presence in the country. She also confirmed Washington’s support for ex-Soviet states aspirations to sign associating agreements with the European Union…
French company EDF has also joined forces with Italy’s Eni for securing a production-sharing agreement for a gas field off the coast of Crimea peninsula…http://www.publics.bg/en/news/10615/

Nov 2013: Royal Dutch Shell: Bloomberg: Shell to Drill First Wells in $10 Billion Ukrainian Project
Shell will need to drill as many as 15 wells to complete the initial exploration appraisal of the 8,000 square-kilometer (3,100 square-mile) Yuzivska field in the eastern part of the country, Graham Tiley, the country manager of Shell Ukraine, said in an interview in Kiev on Nov. 6.
Separately, the company has also completed drilling its first well in the Kharkiv region together with state company DK Ukrhazvydobuvannya, a unit of NAK Naftogaz Ukrainy, and is preparing to drill two more next year, he said…
The government signed a production-sharing agreement with Chevron Corp. yesterday for extraction of shale gas, and plans to complete negotiations by the end of this year with an Exxon Mobil Corp-led group, which includes Shell, to explore off Ukraine’s western Black Sea coast…
The country could hold as much as 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion cubic meters) of shale gas, the third largest reserve in Europe, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimate from 2011. The use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, upended the U.S. gas industry, which overtook Russia as the biggest producer…http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2013/11/08/shell-to-drill-first-wells-in-10-billion-ukrainian-project/

Graham, why haven’t i seen the biggest story online for days now in the Guardian newspaper?

21 Feb: Foreign Policy Journal: Is Ukraine Drifting Toward Civil War And Great Power Confrontation?
by Paul Craig Roberts
VIDEO: In an eight minute, 46 second speech at the National Press Club (Dec 13, 2103) sponsored by the US-Ukraine Foundation, ***CHEVRON, and Ukraine-in-Washington Lobby Group, (Victoria) Nuland, (OBAMA’S Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State) boasted that Washington has spent $5 billion to foment agitation to bring Ukraine into the EU. Once captured by the EU, Ukraine will be “helped” by the West acting through the IMF…
Just look at the large Chevron sign next to which Nuland speaks, and you will know what it is all about…http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/21/is-ukraine-drifting-toward-civil-war-and-great-power-confrontation/
(Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, and the Scripps Howard News Service. He has had numerous university appointments. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, is available at Amazon.com)

Graham, quit PREACHING to the Australian people and the Govt. you are either a pawn in a game too big for you to understand, or a fool, if you think you are taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

no need to tell you i scour the news for CAGW craziness each & every day. yet i have only now come across the following, because i happened to see a comment about Osborne’s remarks on a youtube about nuclear radiation!

NO COVERAGE WHATSOEVER by ABC, Fairfax, BusinessSpectator. no media freak-out from Christine Milne. no criticism by the 3 UK newspapers below, all of which have pushed the CAGW scare for years & pushed for taxpayer-funded green technology.

i saw this coming, & this is where taxpayer money will be/has already been ***invested in the name of CAGW!

20 Feb: UK Mirror: George Osborne says fracking and nuclear power are ‘green’ sources of energy
The Chancellor said a “new generation” of nuclear power stations will be built – and dismissed fears hydraulic fracturing for shale gas could damage the environment.
Mr Osborne said: “I am someone who believes climate change is happening, and caused by human beings. We should do all we can to prevent it and if not, mitigate it, for example, by building flood defences.
“The UK has been one of the outstanding leaders in this space – both in terms of our international global diplomacy, ***but also what we have done at home to create a proper market where people invest in green energy.
“So when it comes to the technology we use, let’s get the right mix. For example, there are people in the green movement who oppose the use of civil nuclear power for ideological reasons, if you like, when it is by definition a green source of energy generation.
“We are going ahead with a new generation of civil nuclear power stations. Equally with shale gas, let’s see more development of fracking in the UK and the US, as that will help reduce carbon emissions.”http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-says-fracking-nuclear-3167529

21 Feb: Guardian: Nicholas Watt: George Osborne wants climate change tackled as cheaply as possible
Chancellor calls on environmentalists to drop opposition to nuclear power and shale gas as they can be inexpensive
In some of his most significant remarks on climate change since he said in 2011 that Britain should go no faster than any other EU country in cutting carbon emissions, the chancellor said it was important not to be “theological” about finding the right energy mix…
In a question and answer after a speech to business leaders in Hong Kong, the chancellor firmly rejected arguments posed by some Tory climate change sceptics when he said man is to blame for global warming. The chancellor said: “I’m someone who believes climate change is happening, that it’s caused by human beings. We should do what we can to prevent it and if we can’t prevent then mitigate against it for example by building flood defences.”…
The remarks by the chancellor about tackling climate change in an inexpensive way chime with the message delivered to modernising Tories when a minister, who is a close Osborne ally, said last year that the prime minister wants to get rid of the “green crap”. The chancellor told the modernisers that he accepts the need to tackle climate change but does not want to harm economic growth in the process.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/george-osborne-climate-change-cheaply

insignificant Independent piece that doesn’t even include nuclear in the headline, 12 comments only:

Love it. The political equivalent of 3 Ave Maria’s and a sprinkling of Holy Water ands LO! filthy energy sources are sanctified! To be fair to George, he has long been the pragmatist in a cabinet full of ecoloons and environmental carpet-baggers. If this attempt to remedy the UK’s energy needs allows the rest to save face, then thats OK with me.

Jo,
The quality of peer reviewing system depends on the on what the mission of the journal is about. If the journal is dedicated to a well defined scientific field, i.e. where the scientific competence is driving the field, then the peer review system works just fine since those doing it are world recognised for their own research that have been validated by their peers. For example, if one wants to publish paper on properties of CO2, that person should have PhD degree in experimental carbon chemistry, biochemistry or biology specializing in photosynthesis and then publish in journals where peer reviewers are recognised for their research that involves CO2. What you have instead is that someone like Gavin S with PhD in mathematics is the lead author on the paper that describes CO2 as a ‘thermostat of our atmosphere’ and publishes it in some back-waters journals that has nothing to do with physicochemical properties of molecules. Few years ago I downloaded the list of all the papers by the ‘Team’ (Mann, Jones and Schmidt) from their own CVs with the following findings:
Number of papers 1100, all based on statistical treatment of numbers generated by computer and NOT by recognised instruments. Number of those papers publish in journals dedicated to statistics – zero. So, for the real sciences that deal with real data peer review system works just fine. There is no science behind man-made global warming, it does not deal with real data and therefore peer review system can’t work since it is not based on scientific competence.

As Skiphil has pointed out, this is reminiscent of the Sokal Affair, when in 1996 Alan Sokal, a physics professor submitted gibberish to Social Text, an “academic journal of postmodern cultural studies”. His article “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, which argued that “quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct” was accepted and published.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

But it also brings to mind Pierre Brassau, whose painting was in 1964 praised thus:

Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.

My memory often needs help. Curiously when I googled “social sciences hoax paper” (without quote marks) the Wikipedia entry on the “Sokal affair” was the first result and the second was the “Hockey stick controversy”.

Skiphil asks:

Has anyone tried a Sokal-type hoax with a pseudo-science paper in Climatology?

Maybe Mann will eventually fess up: “C’mon guys, you didn’t think the hockey stick was real. I was only messin’ with you”.

i know many CAGW sceptics are all for frakking & nuclear, but are you for govt/taxpayer subsidies, which is what we are talking about here? i’ve posted about nuclear previously:

July 2013: Guardian: George Osborne unveils ‘most generous tax breaks in world’ for fracking
Environmental groups furious as chancellor sets 30% rate for shale gas producers in bid to enhance UK energy security
Terry Macalister and Fiona Harvey
The Treasury has set a 30% tax rate for onshore shale gas production. That compares with a top rate of 62% on new North Sea oil operations and up to 81% for older offshore fields…
“This new tax regime, which I want to make the most generous for shale in the world, will contribute to that. I want Britain to be a leader of the shale gas revolution – because it has the potential to create thousands of jobs and keep energy bills low for millions of people.”…
It also comes after a survey showed that nearly 80% of those who were polled believed that the UK should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
Lawrence Carter, a Greenpeace energy campaigner, said: “The chancellor is telling anyone who will listen that UK shale gas is set to be an economic miracle, yet he’s had to offer the industry sweetheart tax deals just to reassure them that fracking would be profitable.
“Experts from energy regulator Ofgem to Deutsche Bank and the company in receipt of this tax break, Cuadrilla, admit that it won’t reduce energy prices for consumers. Instead we’re likely to see the industrialisation of tracts of the British countryside, gas flaring in the home counties and a steady stream of trucks carrying contaminated water down rural lanes.”…
Andrew Pendleton, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said it was a disgrace to offer handouts to polluting energy firms when the rest of Britain was being told to tighten belts…
***Tory MP Peter Lilley, a climate sceptic who is an adviser on foreign policy in No 10, also does not believe the industry needs government help: “I think tax breaks are unnecessary for fracking, based on my knowledge of the oil and gas industry,” he said in a debate on shale gas in Westminster Hall last night. Lilley has been an energy industry analyst for more than 20 years, and has a financial interest in central Asian oil and gas…http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/19/george-osborne-tax-break-fracking-shale-environment

Osborne repeated his frakking/nuclear spiel at The Sydney Institute (podcast at their website,around 36 mins) and still ABC, Fairfax, Milne silent! what total hypocrites:

22 Feb: Australian: Adam Creighton: UK Chancellor backs Abbott plan
In Sydney ahead of the meeting yesterday, Mr Osborne took aim at environmentalists for ignoring the benefits of nuclear power and fracking in their quest to cut global carbon emissions, but wanted the G20 to focus on “primary economic issues”.
“I’m very proud that unlike other advanced economies we are embarking on new generation of nuclear reactors, with French technology and Chinese investment,” he said.
“Environmentalists say they are anti-nuclear yet civil nuclear power is a very effective low-carbon form of generating electricity,” he added, pointing out that US carbon emissions had fallen dramatically on the back of the shale gas revolution, which had drawn similar “theological” opposition…
He said he had “a lot of sympathy” for the Coalition’s agenda.
***“If you’ve got businesses that can only survive through endless public subsidy, I don’t think that’s viable in the long haul,” he said..
On the growing debate over US monetary policy, Mr Osborne sided with Mr Hockey.
???“Developing countries shouldn’t criticise the Fed for doing what it thinks is the right thing to do for the US economy,” he said. “Those countries (with) the least problems recently are the ones who’ve undertaken difficult supply-side reforms.”…
Mr Osborne said developing countries cobbling together their own welfare states should be careful to avoid creating perverse incentives that discouraged lower income families from seeking work.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/uk-chancellor-backs-abbott-plan/story-fn59niix-1226834182531

subsidies in the name of CAGW are ok, but not for manufacturing! the Fed should just keep printing money out of thin air! already we’re told developing countries shouldn’t develop because of CAGW, & now a warning they shouldn’t even attempt to have safety nets.

calling Christine Milne, ABC, Fairfax. this is where your CAGW has led us.

I’m not sure, but if a computer can generate a paper that passes “peer review”, and a computer has determined that the paper is being generated by a computer, then the “peer network” is working, although not in the way originally envisioned.

What is also implied is that, if (iff, if and only if) an assumed human review FAILED to determine the paper was computer generated, and that ONLY another computer was clever-peer enough to spot the difference between an anthropogenerated paper and an automatomiton-generated paper, that automatom can be said to have passed a “Turing Test.”

(I invent novel spellings and neologisms in order to prove myself other than a plagiarizing netbot…)

A.) That 120 peer reviewed papers, passed editorship, and published, read by some or none, were really all written by computer pasting nouns, verbs, adverbs, and technical phrases according to some AI model

B.) We have been presented a FALSE report that a researcher using a computer algorithm has identified over 120 papers in an IEEE field that written by computer algorithms that fooled peer reviewers, editors and the meager readership that paid them any attention.

As a skeptic I am inclined to believe more in B than in A. But, I confess that it is a close call. Come on, the paper’s author, Labbé, is one that has admitted publishing false technical papers in prior years. We are now to believe what he got published in Nature? Maybe Nature is testing our credulity.

A list of the retracted papers, authors, and affected journals is necessary for me to more believe A). The LIG website offers no such list. I find it incredible that no list is offered on the website or referred to in this paper or mentioned in the abstract.

However, given the dense and impenetrable writing style, in many technical papers, more mechanical than human, A.) remains a possibility.

If I understand your post correctly, in Case B we must at least consider the possibility that:
- Nature failed to properly peer-review a paper that purports to demonstrate glaring failures in the peer-review process, or
- Nature is testing us to see how gullible we all are. April fools day come early.

I created an automatic translation program for a fictional language a few years ago, in Cocoa, for my fantasy books. The language was based on Welsh, supposedly spoken by gryphons, and has a distinct grammar with word order changes, a lexical root structure with different word endings for plural, singular, dative, genitive, etc. If the program encountered an English word that was in the thesaurus but didn’t have a gryphon language equivalent in one of the other words in the same section, it would either adapt an existing word or ‘create’ one according to a set of predetermined rules.

Here is the original:

CHAPTER ONE

The Tavern–keeper and the Boy

It was the dusk of the day after the last sliver of the moon and Hhwedolyn the Gryphon stared out from his eyrie, surveying the mountainous valley of Eryodol.

The translation (this is the kind of raw output I would get from the program):

How do the people the businesses the honest people of this country sue those responsible for this scientific fraud forced on our country, economy, jobs, electricity bills, forced on our taxpayer funded media ABC everyday ?

The climate commission is still quoted everyday on the ABC
These people will not stop with their lies and propaganda !
How do we stop this now ?

How about we sue everybody who has been caught lying about climate change?

I’m game. Are you? Are you *really*?

I’m thinking of starting with :
Lindzen: made a “no more warming for the foreseeable future” call in the early ’90s. Should obviously go to gaol for that one.
McLean: “2012 will be the coldest year since 1956″. Gaol’s too kind for somebody telling such a humungous porky.
Don Easterbrook: made climate predictions that were utterly wrong. Don’t pass go. Go to Gaol.
Pat Michaels: So many lies I can’t even list them. Maybe just use his fraudulent graph episode and send him to the slammer for that.
Monckton: Where do you start?

Note that the papers found were produced by one specific piece of software, and that it’s only characteristic use of language by this one specific piece of software that enabled them to be spotted.
This is important because there are multiple pieces of software that produce gibberish papers, so this haul is only a fraction of the *software-produced* gibberish papers out there, never mind the manually-produced gibberish.
And that’s just the gibberish. How many papers are produced in a rush, with made-up data, to meet a deadline or make a result happen. How many papers are “no longer reproducible”?
How shaky is the science on anything?

After more than 15 years at a leading Australasian research institute I have come across a few absolute howlers that made it through peer review. My all-time favourite was a paper claiming to have sterilised the cut surfaces of a 250gm piece of steak by passing electricity through it. Now steak is highly conductive (I’ve tested this), and if they had actually applied the stated voltage across the piece of steak as described, the power applied would have been at least 6,000,000 watts for a total of 30 seconds. This is 180,000,000 joules, sufficient to heat 250 grams of water from room temperature to over 170,000°C. Needless to say, the steak would have simply exploded the instant the power was turned on. Yet this passed peer review in a reputable meat research journal and not withdrawn even after the researchers had “ceased responding to comments or questions”.

[...] be exploited. As happens at times, life imitates art except it goes way over the top. Jo Nova has a story covering the retraction of over a hundred papers on electronics which cleared peer review to publication but turned out to [...]

[...] lies and outright dishonesty. You should read the whole thing. It was prompted by this Jo Nova bit: Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn — so much for “peer review”. For those of you into electronics the IEEE published about 100 of the papers. Categories: [...]